Conservatives and the Government

His conclusion is odd, but today's David Brooks column is pregnant with things to blog about. For example:

Conservatives are supposed to distrust government, but Bush clearly loves the presidency. Or to be more precise, he loves leadership. He’s convinced leaders have the power to change societies. Even in a place as chaotic as Iraq, good leadership makes all the difference.

Now I suppose their must be some conservatives for him this "are supposed to distrust government" dictum applies, but for the past fifty or so years that's clearly not the case. The mainstream conservative belief is that the government needs to be given dramatically greater scope to gather information and to deploy force -- including deadly force -- and threats thereof. This isn't an innovation of the Torture and Arbitrary Detention administration, it's a longstanding pattern. Conservatives didn't like the Warren Court's criminal justice jurisprudence, they didn't like the Church Commission's inquiries into the CIA, they chafe at contemporary military reticence about civilian casualties, etc.

There are exceptions to this (as there are exceptions to everything), but the dominant view in post-war American conservatism has been of almost boundless faith in violence and in large government institutions like the military, the prison system, etc.

Comments

You were too narrow in assessing the reach of post-war conservatism. All government institutions that can assist in transferring wealth from the people to large, government subsidized corporations are part of this movement This includes drug companies, power companies, oil companies as well as the mercenaries and concencetration camp operators you mentioned.

Posted by Peter Driscoll | July 17, 2007 10:15 AM

I was wondering when someone would catch on to this!

This is classic Lakoffian "framing". And it's bait-and-switch. It never ceases to amaze me how many people actually seem to sincerely *believe* that "conservatives" believe in "small government". Even people like Andrew Sullivan write entire books that mistake libertarianism for conservatism. The mainstream media is of course at fault here for parroting this marketspeak and letting conservatives get away with it, but you'd still think more people would have caught on sooner.

Unfortunately, people in general maintain a lot of irrational and self-contradictory thoughts across the board: they don't like big government bureaucracy but they irrationally trust big corporate bureacracy to be more efficient; they don't like big government bureaucracy when it's issuing regulations, but they trust big government bureaucracy when it's in the pentagon or the justice system. They think of the government as "them" not "us" but judicial bureacracy is "we the people". As long as this kind of muddle-headed thinking prevails, Republicans will be able to get away with their misdirection ...

Posted by Justin Grunau | July 17, 2007 10:18 AM

A working hypothesis: Conservatives dislike bureaucratic authority but love charismatic authority. They love Bush, but hate the federal government. They love the warriors who make up the military, but could care less for the Defense Department. It's all part of their problems with modernity.

Posted by Max Weber | July 17, 2007 10:19 AM

Listen to wingnut radio once in a while. Guys like Rush spend half their day reading stories about hapless bureaucrats making stupid decisions and wasting taxpayer money by the barrel. This is all with a view to showing the merits of private enterprise and stripped down government.

But...

They spend the other half of their day playing up stories about evil-doers and terrorists, and why they need to be locked up and tortured without a hearing...such decisions presumably made by (and based on information from), the very same hapless gluttonous bureaucrats they spent the first half of their show deriding...

Posted by 3pointshooter | July 17, 2007 10:26 AM

Not to get off-track, but a minor correction to Brook's statement: Bush doesn't love leadership, he doesn't understand leadership and literally has no concept of it, he loves power.

Posted by Fred F. | July 17, 2007 10:46 AM

Brooks is a right-wing tool and an idiot. He is wrong on both counts. "Conservatives" don't actually hate/distrust government. That is merely a rhetorical tool used to discredit government when Democrats hold governmental power. And Bush wouldn't know leadership if it shot him in the face. What he does know is bullying. And that is what he tries to be good at.

Posted by boy genius | July 17, 2007 10:59 AM

Conservatives dislike bureaucratic authority but love charismatic authority.

Simpler: conservatives like conservatives and dislike liberals. They like "us" but not "them." Bill Clinton was a charasmatic authority but that did not endear him to conservatives.

Posted by Barbar | July 17, 2007 11:21 AM

I think this is right. The Republicans have faith in the military. Democrats have no faith in the military, but have faith in the government to take over virtually every other sector of society: health care, education, etc.

Posted by Al | July 17, 2007 11:25 AM

Can we stop calling them "conservatives" and start calling them "authoritarians"? It certainly seems more accurate.

Posted by Chris | July 17, 2007 12:04 PM

Democrats have no faith in the military, but have faith in the government to take over virtually every other sector of society: health care, education, etc.

Oh Al, please stick to the blogs you regularly troll.

It's a mistake to honestly believe that there is such a thing as "conservatism", except as it serves as a convenient label for the movement that opposes liberals and everyone else who has any interest in how our government is run. "Reasonable" conservatives are always trying to argue that there's some "authentic" conservatism that their movement should return to, but there is no such thing and there never has been. Movements like what passes for conservatism in our country have always and probably always will be dominated by authoritarians who believe firmly in the right of government to impose social values on others by law or otherwise, to indulge in xenophobic fears of other cultures with coercion and force, and to allow the wealthy elite who actually govern to accumulate as much wealth as possible so long as they carry out the first two commands. On particular issues conservatives might have something to offer to the political discourse, but the Bush presidency is evidence of their larger ideological goals and concerns. Thanks to 9/11 they had all the freedom to do as they wished, and our present situation-war in Iraq, massive tax cuts, corruption and inequality, among other things-are the natural result.

Posted by Xanthippas | July 17, 2007 12:07 PM

Bill Clinton was a charasmatic authority but that did not endear him to conservatives.

They prefer charisma as a source for legitimacy, but of course will not follow just any old charismatic figure.

It's a pity that Weber (oops, I mean I) didn't try to explain authenticity -- we might understand the Hugh Thompson phenomenom better. Or maybe it's in there, and I've just forgotten.

Posted by Max Weber | July 17, 2007 12:18 PM

Bush doesn't love leadership. (Whom does he "lead"?) He loves power.

Conservatives agree with Lord Acton for everyone but themselves.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 17, 2007 12:48 PM

They prefer charisma as a source for legitimacy, but of course will not follow just any old charismatic figure.

"Conservatives" have no problem with corporations, the military, the federal government under Republican rule, local governments under Republican rule, and so on. The bureaucratic/charismatic distinction is unnecessary and possibly even useless.

It's like saying that conservatives don't like judicial activism: sure, if Kennedy doesn't go with Scalia/Roberts/Alito/Thomas, they can't stand the Supreme Court. But when he does go their way, suddenly this logic goes out the window.

Posted by Barbar | July 17, 2007 1:11 PM

Here's the deal: "conservative" is code for "fascist". It's ugly to say "fascist" because of that little mix-up back in the late 30's/40's. I would say so except it would invoke Godwin's Law.

Posted by fasteddie | July 17, 2007 3:00 PM

On one hand, he's presiding over an obvious and massive failure with consequences largely unknown beyond the fact that they will be tragic. On the other hand, his messianic complex is quite endearing.

This would all be laughably silly if it weren't so dangerous.

Posted by nonsense in stereo | July 17, 2007 7:16 PM

It's hard to separate all the infulences but my theory is that ideology is a combination of psychological proclivities and self-interest. In some people, self-intrest (the newly rich, for example) can be the main factor, but there is definitely a conservative "personality" (see John Derbyshire). They are attracted to strong authority figures, ceremony, and violence. They are nostolgic, sentimental, and lack empathy. They love rules and are inflexible.

When your just talking about conservative psychological proclivities without self-interest, such as in the poor white and rural, then you get a genuine dislike of most governemnt based on the cultural rule: "a man should meet their own needs without help or die." But becasue they are attracted to authority and violence they are going to naturally support the military and police.

When you bring self-interest into the picture, then the love for the military and police aligns with the need to protect and expand you and your firends assets. If you are a politician then you also have to pass out the goodies to remain elected. This is going to lead to the enlagement of government to some extent but these people are still going to be the enemy of any social programs.

Posted by cw | July 18, 2007 10:47 AM

Conservatives favor large government--regulation and spending, including massive domestic spending. But they are not for redistribution of wealth. In the early 1960s a watershed was reached: almost all elected officials morphed from nineteenth century liberalism to modern liberalism. All politicians today are for big government and big spending. They are differentiated by the kinds of programs they want and whether or not they care about protecting civil liberties. While conservatives are dishonest about their love of big government, most liberals these days are afraid of the label. The failure of liberals to defend explicitly New Deal type modern liberalism(which is a synthesis of the concern for civil liberties and anti-authoritarianism of nineteenth century liberalism and the use of the state, especially for domestic programs and to redistribute wealth) is the biggest problem we face today.

Posted by Historian | July 18, 2007 3:14 PM