Made by Andrew Bacevich. Of course to Bacevich, opposition to the hubris of empire is part of what makes a conservative. And in a purely abstract sense, he may have a point. But actually existing American conservatism seems so committed to a project of militarism and coercive domination that Bacevich's case seems a bit precious.
« The Hard Question | Main | Green Acres »
The Conservative Case for Obama
24 Mar 2008 01:33 pm
Comments (18)
So is "American conservatism" an ideological term, or just a name for whatever policies a particular group of people in America--who tend to call themselves "conservatives"--are supporting at this particular time?
Because, for example, some members of this particular group seemed to have different thoughts on these issues back when a person of a different political party was Commander in Chief. That suggests to me these people are not really bound together by ideology, or at least not a coherent one.
Ideologies are always a bit incoherent.
This one is less coherent than usual at the moment.
Conservatism has been defined and redefined to justify the POV of those who wish to be considered conservative.
From my POV, in many ways being a conservative seems to be about rejecting the connotations associated with liberalism since the Vietnam era. They need a badge that says I am not a hippy.
My generation could care less about the conservative vs. liberal debate. For example, we don't consider pro-enviromentalism a liberal cause, but rather a necessary one. And so on, on many issues.
"...seemed to have different thoughts on these issues back when a person of a different political party was Commander in Chief."
Yeah, I've noticed that, too. That could be an additional great feature of a democratic president:
I predict we'll see the incoherent "backlash conservatives" take cues from their libertarian betters and become suddenly concerned about the surveillance state. (Especially if it's Clinton!)
Ted,
I think that is slightly begging the question. I agree that if we define particular ideologies in terms of the policies that particular groups support, it is likely that "ideologies are always a bit incoherent".
But a different approach would note that often people form political groupings in part for nonideological reasons. Hence, the fact that most such groups do not have a consistent or coherent ideology associated with them might not reflect a general truth about ideologies, but rather the frequent nonideological components in the makeup of such groups.
Well, these days I'd say that the dominant ideology of "American movement conservatism" seems pretty close to what governed Argentina during most of the 20th century, namely a mixture of corruption and stupidity. But I'm sure that all the various Argentine leaders of that period claimed to have an ideology, and their sycophants in the media kept up that pretense. "Fill the prisons and empty the treasury" has a nice ring to it.
But I'll also lay odds that if St. Barack (or Hilary Satanus) is elected, they won't do anything sensible about our looming financial collapse, and would run for reelection in 2012 on a promise to rapidly withdraw from Iraq (assuming we have already been kicked out by then).
Sounds just like Argentina---of the Evita era---to me...
"...seemed to have different thoughts on these issues back when a person of a different political party was Commander in Chief."
Yeah, I've noticed that, too. That could be an additional great feature of a democratic president:
I predict we'll see the incoherent "backlash conservatives" take cues from their libertarian betters and become suddenly concerned about the surveillance state. (Especially if it's Clinton!)
DTM: Okay -- I'll give you that.
I tend to think that what you're saying in the second paragraph is almost always true, on some level. I.e., I think most "ideologies" are in fact constructed ex post facto to rationalize the interests of some existing group.
But I do understand the distinction you're wanting to make -- between primarily intellectual and primarily pragmatic motivation -- and it's a perfectly reasonable distinction. And a useful one here, because it's gotten really really hard to figure out what the intellectual basis of "American conservatism" is.
Matt's thesis that it's basically "imperialism" seems politically accurate to me, but for pragmatic purposes I'd be happy to see conservatives wriggle themselves out of that!!
This is the typical paleocon attitude, and essentially a repeat of Scott McConnell's 2004 rationale for supporting Kerry (also from the American Conservative).
At this point, the paleocons are so marginalized within the party that they believe their biggest chance at ousting the neocons is an opposition victory. I'm skeptical of their chances, but it is perhaps possible that the more progressive tenor of the 2008 Democratic primary is in part due to the miserable failure of the 2004 consensus candidate Kerry campaign, and the consequences of 4 more years of Bush.
Ted,
I will return the favor and grant that most ideologies are likely ex post rationalizations.
Along those lines, I would take your point a step farther. I think the basic "principle" motivating the group in question is something like "more power for me and mine". Advocating imperialism while one of theirs is in the position of de facto Emperor thus makes sense, but I also suspect that most of them will return to critizing imperialism as soon the de facto Emperor would not be one of theirs.
And I doubt they will even bother explaining the change (hence, little "wriggle" problem). They will just pick up the same old arguments they were making back before one of theirs had a chance to play Emperor, and act as if they never argued anything different.
Ted,
I will return the favor and grant that most ideologies are in fact ex post rationalizations.
Indeed, I would take your point even further, and suggest the "principle" binding this group together boils down to something like "more power for us." Accordingly, they are supporting imperialism while one of theirs gets to play Emperor, and I bet they go back to opposing imperialism more or less as soon as that is no longer the case.
And I doubt they will even bother to "wriggle". They will just use the same anti-imperial arguments they have used in the past, and simply refuse to admit they ever argued anything different.
Sorry for the double post (I thought the first one was lost to a glitch).
I agree. I don't know if it's intellectually coherent, but the emotional core of American conservatism often seems to be an unabashed defense of selfishness. Selfishness is not just okay -- it becomes, like, a moral principle.
In foreign policy, this takes the form of imperialism; in economic policy, it's free-market absolutism.
How they get this all to square with Christianity is a great mystery, and in fact it nearly produced a meltdown in the Republican primary this time around. But not as bad as our meltdown, unfortunately . . .
By Andrew Bacevich's definition (except, as a Jew, I'd phrase the "sinfulness" part a bit differently) I am a conservative (being an older sibling myself, I call this philosophy "older brother conservatism"). Indeed, I know many conservatives who think like this (who are conservative in the sense of "wanting to keep what's good and works") -- and we are all very much liberal Democrats.
However, the last time the GOP stood for this kind of conservatism was in the days of the Progressives. And while the neo-cons like to claim the Bull Moose mantle, they are hardly conservatives in the sense Bacevich lays out but rather the sort of conservatives that Bacevich would disdain. I suspect the last person prior to Bacevich who would define conservatism as Bacevich does, who would not say "I am a conservative but also a left-wing moonbat", must have been Peter Viereck.
The thing about being a "conservative" is that where you are politically depends on what it is you actually propose to "conserve". If you want to conserve the momentum that has brought the US from being an agrarian backwater to being a 1st world country, you could hardly be in the same political party as someone who is a neo-feudalist who wants to bring back the pre-New Deal social contract for America. In the former case, you may be a conservative, but as someone who wants to conserve "progress" you are a progressive and also a liberal. In the latter case, you are a GOoPer.
Matt, I see not a whole pile of difference between the Democrats and the Republicans on this--I thought that was the thesis of your book. The point is that authentic Republicans/conservatives and authentic Democrats/liberals should be for intelligent military intervention. Both parties in this sense have been hijacked but (lets face it) everyone is pretty militaristic nowadays and assumes the vision of the coercive empire (recent absurdities on Iran in the Atlantic being a case in point).
The speech appeals to conservatives as much because of its mood as its content. As Andrew Sullivan has previously noted, Obama has a conservative “temperament” which makes his liberal politics appealing to the Burkean ear. In “A More Perfect Union,” this temperament is evidenced in Obama’s account of history. Obama sees the past as a reservoir of good and bad meanings that we cannot separate ourselves from. He employs William Faulkner’s famous observation that “the past isn’t dead and buried. In fact, it isn’t even past.” He recalls the wounds caused by progress, as perceived preferences for black advancement inspired anger and resentment among poor and middle class whites. And he explains his refusal to entirely disavow Wright as a matter of loyalty, commitment, and culture: “I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community… These people are a part of me. And they are part of America, this country that I love. ”
Obama’s unwillingness to reject the historical and cultural moorings of his own personality mirrors the tragedy of the south, where many people are unable to reject the legacy of the Confederacy, even while acknowledging the evils of slavery and Jim Crow, because they find essential cultural capital invested there. In this way, Obama makes the conservative case for the discussion of racism, as an element of our past that is lived in the present, that cannot neatly be separated by the many glories of American history. While conservatives may get off the boat when Obama describes the social policies and expenditures he proposes to address these problems, this disagreement over remedy need not undermine the underlying consensus that race is real and its manifestations are problematic.
In opening a conversation on race with rhetoric that appeals to conservatives as well as liberals, Obama has highlighted an existing cleavage in America’s political sensibility. He has carved out a distinction between two conflicting perspectives that cut across party and politics, conventionally understood. There are those who think we ought to think about race when discussing and forming policy, and those who don’t. Among those who don’t, count Bill Kristol...
...read on at: www.radicalnegative.blogspot.com
The speech appeals to conservatives as much because of its mood as its content. As Andrew Sullivan has previously noted, Obama has a conservative “temperament” which makes his liberal politics appealing to the Burkean ear. In “A More Perfect Union,” this temperament is evidenced in Obama’s account of history. Obama sees the past as a reservoir of good and bad meanings that we cannot separate ourselves from. He employs William Faulkner’s famous observation that “the past isn’t dead and buried. In fact, it isn’t even past.” He recalls the wounds caused by progress, as perceived preferences for black advancement inspired anger and resentment among poor and middle class whites. And he explains his refusal to entirely disavow Wright as a matter of loyalty, commitment, and culture: “I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community… These people are a part of me. And they are part of America, this country that I love. ”
Obama’s unwillingness to reject the historical and cultural moorings of his own personality mirrors the tragedy of the south, where many people are unable to reject the legacy of the Confederacy, even while acknowledging the evils of slavery and Jim Crow, because they find essential cultural capital invested there. In this way, Obama makes the conservative case for the discussion of racism, as an element of our past that is lived in the present, that cannot neatly be separated by the many glories of American history. While conservatives may get off the boat when Obama describes the social policies and expenditures he proposes to address these problems, this disagreement over remedy need not undermine the underlying consensus that race is real and its manifestations are problematic.
In opening a conversation on race with rhetoric that appeals to conservatives as well as liberals, Obama has highlighted an existing cleavage in America’s political sensibility. He has carved out a distinction between two conflicting perspectives that cut across party and politics, conventionally understood. There are those who think we ought to think about race when discussing and forming policy, and those who don’t. Among those who don’t, count Bill Kristol...
...read on at: www.radicalnegative.blogspot.com
Comments closed April 07, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I'll take precious. Any conservatives who want to redefine conservatism so that it ≠ imperialism, that's ok with me.
If it ≠ torture and domestic spying, hey I'll take that too.
Posted by Ted | March 24, 2008 1:44 PM